Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday October 21, 2011 @02:10PM
from the pack-your-things dept.

mayberry42 writes with news that President Obama has announced an end to the U.S. military engagement in Iraq. All U.S. soldiers will leave Iraq by the end of the year.
"Mr. Obama said that as of Jan. 1, 2012, the United States and Iraq would begin 'a normal relationship between two sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect.' In a videoconference on Friday morning with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Mr. Obama told him of the administration’s decision, which grows out of an inability of the United States and Iraq to come to an agreement on leaving a few thousand military trainers in the country. The United States had earlier agreed to exit Iraq by the end of the year and leave 3,000 to 5,000 troops in Iraq as trainers, with some members of Congress advocating the retention of a reduced fighting force as well. But Pentagon lawyers insisted that the Iraqi Parliament grant immunity from legal prosecution to the troops if they were to remain."

Contractors, security, and military advisers are not technically soldiers either. I'd like to know how far this pull out goes. Either way, it will look good for the election, and it's not so close that people will ask why 6 months turned into 3 1/2 years.

If I were a voting Obama supporter, I would want a serious explanation of why Gitmo is still open.

Are you suggesting that Obama plans to leave unmanned airbases full of drones in Iraq for the purpose of continuing the war? Or that this would even be possible?

No. I am suggesting governments speak at best in doublespeak, at worst in blatant lies. And reading between the lines is part of understanding what they say. It's been added to the conversation that 5000 "security contractors" are not soldiers, 17000 "embassy personnel" are not soldiers, and thus, it's not clear at all that US military activity in Iraq will end when the last "troops" leave. And so the military drones, satellites, information and psy ops, etc are quite possibly going to be part of the future picture as well - without even having to deploy any strategic truth.

Embassy personnel aren't soldiers. They're diplomats and secretaries and cafeteria workers and IT admins and so on. That's not doublespeak. In fact, the only deception here is your use of scare quotes.

No, but it would probably be easy enough to have bases in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia that could strike there.According to Wikipedia, a Predator drone "can fly up to 400 nautical miles (740 km) to a target, loiter overhead for 14 hours, then return to its base."

With this information and a quick look at a map, it looks like they could fly drones over everything but the eastern parts of Iraq pretty easily.

Yes, but at least the date above is the same date that the Obama administration has been giving for this action since inauguration(I can't find any reference to specifically this time prior to that). Politicians lie, but this would be a pretty dumb time for Obama to do it.

The reason the date has been same is because it was agreed to with the Iraqi government a couple of months before Obama was elected. The only change is the Iraqi's are kicking out the few troops they agreed to keep before, but the general exit framework has been in place for a while.As it presently stands the US army is an invited guest of the Iraqi government, and they have said for 3 years that 2012 will be our exit date. There is no way the US would violate this (moon bat ravings aside) as it would be

Yes, but at least the date above is the same date that the Obama administration has been giving for this action since inauguration(I can't find any reference to specifically this time prior to that). Politicians lie, but this would be a pretty dumb time for Obama to do it.

Sure, but the speeches he was giving before his inauguration called for leaving within his first year of office.

Cite please? It's always good to hold politicians accountable to what they promised, but I don't recall anything more specific than "beginning withdrawal", which technically was already started a little before 2009.

You must not have been paying attention to the campaign much... like watching one of the debates [youtube.com]... or him in the Senate [youtube.com] where he proposed a bill that would have had all troops out by March 31st, 2008.

i do not think you understand how the US Army is set up. i assure you there have been US soldiers engaged in combat since the withdrawal of "combat troop" from iraq. there have even been US soldier combat deaths.

it's word play. the only combat troops taken out of Iraq where organizations with the word "combat" in their names. all US soldiers are combat troops. it's our first MOS.

Afghanistan is not actually part of Iraq. If you look on a map you'll find it is a completely different country. I know most people suck at geography but you'll have to trust me on this.

Afghanistan is a whole other war - one that we probably are more justified in being involved with since the Taliban was happily hiding Al Qaeda - the supposed real threat to the US. The Taliban are pretty much worse that Saddam, Osama, and Qaddafi combined. The atrocities they've committed on women are horrific.

Well honestly based on your comment I didn't know if you really DID realize that they were two unrelated wars. Your statement was a completely non-sequitur.

And Afghanistan is a problem we created in the first place LONG ago by helping them push the Russians out without putting an alternative into place. Taliban took control and trust me - there aren't much worse in the way of atrocities you can commit there. What's worse is they (along with Pakistan our supposed ally) were harboring the people who actual

Let's welcome them home from this situation properly -- with pomp and circumstance. To say they deserve at least that much is an understatement. If we can manage to make this happen for the Yankees, then we need to make sure it happens for the troops.

I appreciate the sacrifices soldiers make but considering how unpopular and unjustified the war in Iraq was and how much such a parade would be a target for violence and terrorism, as a New Yorker, I vote they move the parade to DC.

As someone who was there, I think they would rather just come home and get back to a normal life, or as much of one as is possible. This war has been going on for far too long, with far too much pointless killing on both sides. Over a million service members have served there. Many are wounded for life or made the ultimate sacrifice. The 30,000 or so still there do deserve a hand shake and a pat on the back, but that's about all. The real heroes didn't come home. Parades make me want to puke.

Yes and no. The Iraqi government (well, parts of it) would like for some troops to stay. They really enjoy having a free security force.

They were in negotiations with the US to continue it, but terms had to be dictated. The sticking point was a matter of immunity. The Iraqis wanted troops to be subjected to Iraqi laws; currently they are held to the UCMJ (US law). This was the key point in negotiation two weeks ago:

As a member of the Armed Forces, this comment honestly offends me. I've been in for 6 years now, already completed 1 deployment and have not at any point felt "good" about holding a gun in my hands shooting "bad" guys. The fact that you even think that shows how ill-informed you truly are. I urge you to take time out of your honorable life and go spend some time with these people that you are so quick to bash.

I am an American Soldier. I'm from New York, and I enlisted after college. Like most of my buddies, I took a pay cut to serve in the Army. I knew exactly what I was signing up for. My recruiter tried to convince me to pick a safe job, but I knew I belonged in a combat job. My enlistment will run out before I'm scheduled to deploy, but I've decided to voluntarily extend my contract so that I can deploy with my platoon. I don't care about the Afghans or Iraqis. I hope they live long prosperous lives. But if I have to kill people, then that's the way it goes. That isn't what concerns me. I'm going overseas so that I can make sure everybody gets home.

My apologies if my story doesn't fit into your storyline. It is the truth, and you'll find most soldiers defy your expectations. I went to basic training with an enlisted soldier in his 30's who was a doctor and professor of economics. He spoke with a thick accent because he was from Portugal. I don't think he was a citizen. He just wanted to serve the country that took him in as one of its own.

The biggest problem I see with how the public sees soldiers is that everybody wants to speak for us. Nobody wants to listen to what we have to say.

These wars were possible because service members refused to use their conscience and not participate. Nobody gets absolved of evil because they were only following orders.

I offer you this excerpt from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience for your Saturday morning reading:

Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, ca

Now, let's get them home from Afghanistan, too. As much as I'd like to see the Afghan people have a safe and stable democracy, 10 years is too long and too many Americans have died. We seem to be having better luck with drones and missiles. Bring *all* the troops home now!

I think the quickest way for us to get our troops home from Afghanistan would be to kill every single person in the country. I'm sure that a systematic extermination of everyone in the country would not take nearly as long as just trying to kill the bad guys. If we don't care whom we kill I am sure we can get out of there in around one year.

Agreed. I'm not fond of the Taliban taking over everything there, but an occupying army cannot effect the cultural changes needed to keep them out. The best we can do is assist anyone who wants to leave.

10 years, but the first 7 they weren't given any real direction why excuses where made to go into Iraq.

We cant just bring them home now. It would leave a vacuum similar to the one during Reagan's presidency. That is the cause of this in the first place. We have to have a stable government, and then move out.

I don't particularly have a lot of love for the President, but why do they continually call him "Mr. Obama"? If they can't respect the man, that's fine, but at least respect the office. Hopefully I'm not being overly pedantic...

I seem to recall one way that our beloved leaders have gotten around it is by sending in more "peace-keeping", "training", or "support" forces instead. And of course our dear friends from Blackwater as contractors can be there forever shooting up the place without being counted as troops.

In other words we probably won't see any meaningful change from this, just as we haven't seen any meaningful change from anything else that has actually been done by Obama since taking office.

It bothers me that all of the "announcements" that I am reading make this look like a decision made for the good of the country by the Obama administration. This is just not the case. As much as I am not a GWB fan the truth of the matter is that the Dec 31 2011 date for removing combat troops from Iraq was set by
a a strategic framework and security agreement between the Bush administration white house and the Iraqi's in November of 2008.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081127-2.html [archives.gov]
Pentagon officials under the Obama administration have actually been trying to get the Iraqi's to extend this date since may/june of last year
but they (Iraqi government) will not ALLOW us to stay any longer in combat capacity.

Hooray! Now the can stop hating us for interfering in their country and begin hating us for leaving them hanging. Just like we did in Afghanistan, which pissed off Osama Bin Ladin enough for him to declare a Jihad against us.

Because a soldier's primary function is to kill his/her enemy and most countries find that illegal, so all we are saying is if you want a fighting force left, we need to allow them to shoot anyone on site. Sounds harsh, but picture yourself in the boots of a soldier if you can.

I assume you mean "Shoot people according to the rules of engagement", right? The US has treaty obligations that make it very clear that mowing down civilians is not ok. I'm not saying they don't do that kind of thing, but that's not supposed to be the way it works.

Current rules of engagement are deadly to troops, and civilians still get killed. They don't protect anyone, and just make a bad situation worse.

Imagine the following(true story), Troops patrolling a city come under fire from a small building. As they close in a bunch of "farmers" come out of the building hands raised and no weapons. Troops are not allowed to shoot OR capture them, because they don't have POSITIVE PROOF that those "farmers" were the insurgents (or whatever they are called this week). Rules

Not really, that has more to do with the fact that we keep our military personnel confined to Base/Post/Ship for days on end and then let them free on 'liberty' for some R&R. All the SOFA does is tell the host country that they must turn over the soldier to the US for trial. It doesn't stop them from being arrested for doing illegal things.

Don't forget that military law is very strictly followed and absolutely vicious in its penalties. There are numerous instances in which crimes are silenced or covered up at the unit level, but once the wheels get rolling the JAG will cremate your ass. A friend of mine was killed downtown by a soldier driving drunk. Because he was off-duty and off-base at the time he was tried in civilian court, resulting in a two year sentence and a dishonorable discharge. I was told he could easily have gotten life in the

Simple really, because the guys in power now may not be the guys in power tomorrow and things they have done may not be acceptable later.

Plus accidents do and will happen. If these troops were forced to defend themselves they should not have to do so with the specter of prosecution hanging over their heads. The bad guys aren't beyond using innocents to setup a situation

For one.Who honestly thinks during war any Country including the United States was a pure good group people who never did anything wrong? If you do then you are an idiot. You take a person, you give him a gun, you back him up with thousand of other people with guns, place him in a situation were other people are going to try to kill him. He will bend the rules to the breaking point to survive and if they have a lot of people backing him up he can really test how far it will bend.When we go to war, having troops who break the laws is expected and is usually factored into the calculation, it just isn't publicized as it isn't PC. Immunity makes sure these people can come back home and lot of them will live normal honest lives when they are outside that environment.

Secondly.If they are a good person, they will be following US law and orders. Not the other countries laws and orders. So for example it may be illegal to eat pork in the country but while the troops are there they had their monthly Pork Ribs BBQ. or the fact they are hunting down an enemy and had to break into a bunch of peoples houses to get the job done. Immunity will stop the defeated country from being a dick and wrap the US up in decades of legal hearings, or imprison good people.

Third.For the people who have been committing crimes will need to deal with US court. Where the rules are what they know of and sure that it isn't a show trial.

To be blunt, because Iraqi factions include some who are aligned with us, and others who are aligned against us (and generally with Iran). You need immunity to prevent those factions not aligned with us from using prosecutions of our troops on trumped up charges to manipulate us.

Not to defend China too much, but it's quite worth noting that China spends a far smaller percent of its GDP on its military than the US does. The official Chinese military budget for 2010 was under 90B, although estimates peg actual spending between 100 and 150 billion. The US does a bit of off-books military budgeting, too, such as putting nuclear weapons in the DOE and having war spending come as supplementals. Overall, the US spends about 6x on the military what China spends, but has under 3x the GDP

Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power? I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?

Uh, same as the US? Resources, strategic locations, egomania and creating markets for the military industry?

China has grievences or claims against all of the above- if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.

That's speculation. I can not disprove them, though I don't think the Chinese are entire irrational, and probably realize that most of these countries are more valuable to them as partners and markets than they are as battlegrounds.

Seriously, the US has invaded and bombed a ton of countries since WW2 (about 50, I think). The funny thing about all of them is that at least at the respective times none o

Define freed? Does tearing down an oppressive organization that will later be replaced by another that will be similarly oppressive? The problem with another group winning your freedom for you, especially in the middle east is that people that are used to being oppressed and enslaved, the oppressed middle eastern countries, are like girls with an abusive father. They grow up move out, and move in with an equally abusive boyfriend. A white knight "saves" her from the abusive boyfriend, he goes to jail or whatever, without massive amounts of therapy, guess where she'll be in 2 years. 9 times out of 10, with a new abusive husband.

I did not say either was impossible. Women do get out of that situation all the time, usually after an abusive relationship is broken off, they get years of therapy, and work to change the way they think. When you mass scale it from a person to a country... it takes alot more years. Basically the 2 sane options are. 1. Agree to lock in, keep thousands of troops there for 20 years or so to stabilize the country, or 2 note that it is a more or less lost cause. Sending countless of your own people to their gra

Your point is a good one, but can only hold water in a vacuum. "Freeing" countries involves war: blood spilled, innocents killed, things blown up, cities turned rubble. Hope is good, sure, but when you're going to order people into graves and nullify great amounts of energy building a society, I'd like a little more evidence of net good than just "some hope".

I partially agree with you that the amount of housecleaning the former government did is a large factor. The part on women though is not blaming the victim, it is basic psychology in how the human mind works. People tend to stick to what they are used to, and wind up repeating roles. In the scenario I gave, it is not the woman's fault, if anyone would be to blame directly in that example it would be the abusive father that adjusted the hypothetical person to it. It dosn't take any research or source to know

You didn't RTFA (standard practice) but you didn't RTFS either. The whole reason this is news is because the US will NOT be leaving 5000 troops behind. The administration was unable to reach an agreement granting immunity to US troops, and so will instead be leaving behind only about 150, to "assist with arms sales."

None of the articles I read mentioned contractors, though, so your number on that is probably not far off.

Soldiers still have to answer to US laws (theoretically of course). This just means they wouldn't have to answer to Iraqi laws. Imagine if Iraq passed a law that said all women must wear long pants and decides to arrest a female soldier in shorts.

Funny how the loudest and most outspoken critics have never worn a uniform.

Rape, pillage and murder? Lets take any city in the us thats similar to the size of baghdad and compare the number of rapes between the two cities.

Do you know that a female with an exposed face or a female caught going somewhere without a male escort is a crime in most middle eastern countries. How would you feel if every female american soldier was put in jail and placed on trial for these crimes? I'm sure you wouldnt care because y

Those things would be handled by a military tribunal. The immunity is sought in order to prevent US soldiers from being hanged by a foreign court that hates them, for a minor offense. A reasonable demand IMHO, as we did just overthrow their country, there is plenty of, justifiable, hate towards Americans there.

The embassy constitutes US soil within a foreign land. Troops stationed there are technically on 'American soil'. For the same reason, we can firmly declare that we have no troops occupying Cuba even though there are thousands of Troops at Guantanamo Bay. It is US soil.